But they did not propose specific legislation to make the current Foundation Formula conform to the suggestion, saying it was too early in the process. And the committee also did not entirely rule out pieces of the current system that reward districts based on the tax wealth they generate.

“I do not favor moving away from the reward-for-effort concept,” said Rep. Bob Johnson, R-Jackson County. “We’re looking at a situation where many students will get less state aid than they do now.”

Some said that the committee’s seemingly contradictory move underscores the complexity and contentiousness of the school funding battle.

“I think this report shows that there is not one single solution,” said Mike Wood, director of government relations for the Missouri State Teachers Association. “Coming to a consensus is going to be very difficult.”

Proposed method would redistribute funding

The differences between the present system and the committee’s proposal are significant.

In its present form, the state grants funding through a complex reward system that emphasizes creation and use of local money.

But the proposed method, the committee’s report says, would help reduce the bias towards local tax wealth because it distributes money based on need, not taxation ability.

While some state education organizations support placing increased focus on student needs, they are also concerned that it could detract from local motivation to fund schools.

Challenges to the new plan

First, it is unclear how much money the state would have to spend to incorporate the new methodology, said school funding expert John Jones.

“It may not change at all, but the odds are it will increase state costs,” Jones said. “That’s because we’re still underfunding special education.”

Secondly, Jones said , it would likely cause certain districts considered “held harmless” to lose significant amounts of money. Those districts — by law — cannot lose any state aid. But the committee plan to use need-based funding would require districts to give up their protected status.

Eliminating that, said committee Chairman Sen. Charlie Shields, R-St. Joseph, is a political impossibility and something that the plan would have to work around.

Once the report is filed, Shields said, the committee’s work will be far from over. They still have much research to do, he said, and he left open the possibility that the committee may propose legislation offering minor changes to the current formula.

“It’s like we’ve completed the undergraduate part of our education,” Shields said Wednesday night. “And now it’s time to move to graduate school.”